Republic of the Philippines

Province of Leyte
Municipality of Palo, Leyte
Civil Service Commission
Regional Office VIII
Pawing, Palo, Leyte

MARIA A. MAKILING for Administrative Case No. 2022-135

International State College of the
Philippines (ISCP)

Complainant For: GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND

SERIOUS DISHONESTY FOR
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENT, GROSS NEGLECT OF
DUTY AND CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL
TO THE INTEREST OF THE SERVICE
WITH PREVENTION SUSPENSION

-versus-

JUAN D. DELA CRUZ

Respondent

x--------------------------------------x

DECISION

This resolves the administrative case of grave misconduct and

serious dishonesty for falsification of public document, gross neglect of duty
and conduct prejudicial the interest of the service with preventive
suspension filed by the International State College of the Philippines (ISCP)
represented by its Chancellor, MARIA A. MAKILING against JUAN D.
DELA CRUZ the School Nurse of International State College of the
Philippines.
 The facts culled from the records are as follows:

International State College of the Philippines a government owned

State College, uses biometrics to monitor the daily attendance of its
employees and as a fall back in case of any malfunctions of the said
biometrics, they also direct their employees to resort to writing their daily
time record in a Log Book;

On November 2021 to February 2022, Respondent had written

entries instead of the usual printed version of the Daily Time Record (DTR)
as observed by the Human Resource and Management Office of the
school. Furthermore, the HRMO staff, found out that those entries written at
the DTR were not reflected in the Log Book. It was also observed that the
Respondent went out the campus during office hours without an authorized
Pass Slip or a Travel Order. The HRM Officer gave him a fair warning and
was warned that doing of the same shall be dealt with more seriously by
the College; However, such occurrence still happened from March 2022
until August 2022, and every time, he was given and was reminded of the
warning; There were also information from various employees and several
people that he is seen to be attending cock fights or derby’s in Tacloban
and other nearby cities or municipalities;

Respondent argued on his answer and position paper, that he always

uses the biometric scanner upon going to work every day and that there
are times when there are early morning emergencies at the school
premises that the Respondent inadvertently forgets to use the biometric
scanner in which case he resorts to writing his time in for the day in the log
book. That he lives in one of the staff houses of the College and that going
out during office hours unofficially or without travel pass would be
impossible for the security officers. As to the entries in the Security Officer’s
Log Book, he argued that it was done with malice and bad faith on the part
of the security officers for a reason that they have personal disputes.

Respondent also denies the alleged information from various

employees and several people that he is seen to be attending cockfights in
Tacloban and other nearby cities or municipalities and asserts such is
hearsay and is not backed up with clear evidence.

Respondent was formally charge for grave misconduct, serious

dishonesty, gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the conduct of
service under Administrative Case No. 2022-135 which is the subject of
resolution.
 The issue is; Whether or not, the respondent committed grave
misconduct and serious dishonesty for falsification of public document,
gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial the interest of the service.

After careful perusal of the evidence and position papers submitted

by both parties, this body held to dismiss case for lack of substantial
evidence to show that there was violations of Sections 4, 5, 22 and 46 of
Rule XVII, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No.
292 which define the policy on government office hours, and penalties for
unauthorized absences, tardiness in reporting for duty, and loafing during
office hours which constitutes as grave offense considering the frequency
and regularity of its commission and its effect to government service..
Sections 4 and 5, Rule XVII, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of
Executive Order No. 292 provides:
"SEC 4. Falsification or irregularities in the keeping of time records
will render the guilty officer or employee administratively liable without
prejudice to criminal prosecution as the circumstances warrant.

"SEC 5. Officers and employees of all departments and agencies

except those covered by special laws shall render not less than eight
hours of work a day for five days a week or a total of forty hours a
week, exclusive of time for lunch. As a general rule, such hours shall
be from eight o'clock in the morning to twelve o'clock noon and from
one o'clock to five o ' clock in the afternoon on all days except
Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays.

On Frequent Unauthorized Absences (Habitual Absenteeism),

Tardiness in Reporting for Duty and Loafing from Duty during Regular
Office Hours, Section 22, Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V
of Executive Order No. 292 provides:

"An officer or employee in the civil service shall be considered

habitually absent if he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the
allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit under the Leave Law for at
least three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive
months during the year.
 "In case of claim of ill-health, heads of departments or agencies are
encouraged to verify the validity of such claim, if not satisfied with the
reason given, should disapprove the application for sick leave. On the
other hand, in cases where an employee absents himself from work
before approval of the application, said application should be
disapprove

"In the discretion of the Head of any department, agency, or office,

any government physician may be authorized to do a spot check on
employees who are supposed to be on sick leave.
Section 46 (B) (5), Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service (RRACCS) provides that Frequent Unauthorized Absences
(Habitual Absenteeism), Tardiness in Reporting for Duty, and Loafing from
Duty during Regular Office Hours are grave offenses punishable by
suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first
offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense.
Foremost, it must be stressed that this is an administrative case for
grave misconduct, and falsification of official document. To sustain a finding
of administrative culpability only substantial evidence is required, not
overwhelming or preponderant, and very much less than proof beyond
reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. Upon examination of
evidence it was shown that the complainant failed to establish such
quantum of proof that the entries in the DTR of the respondent was
falsified by him.
In falsification cases, what is merely required is a showing that the
made entries in their respective DTR’s knowing fully well that they were
false. Such fact cannot be proven in this case as the evidence presented
showed that the respondent was not tardy or absent and was actually
present on the dates which were subject of the allegation. While it is true
that the respondent forgot to use the biometrics and wrote his time record
in the logbook such was due to emergency situation which should be
excused, him being in the field health which should not incur any
unnecessary delays.
The respondent having presented evidence that he had written
Daily Time Record, the clinic’s logbook which show that he has been
having patients and the CCTV footage which shows his actual presence
in the office at the alleged dates of his absences prove otherwise what
has been stated in the biometrics and testimonies of witnesses
presented by the complainant.
The fact of actual falsification cannot be seen as the there was no
proof that the entries DTR were false other than the logbook of the
security officer which was not appreciated by the court as there was a
personal dispute between the security officer and the respondent which
was established in the hearing. It cannot be denied that such logbook
may be tainted with malice or bad faith as it may be accessed by
anyone and it seen to have so many alterations.
The alleged information from that respondent is seen to be attending
cockfights in Tacloban and other nearby cities or municipalities should not
be given merit as such were baseless allegations and were not supported
by substantial evidence.
Lastly, the quantum of proof in administrative proceedings necessary
for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The
burden to establish the charges rests upon the complainant. The case
should be dismissed for lack of merit if the complainant fails to show in a
satisfactory manner the facts upon which his accusations are based the
respondent is not even obliged to prove his exception or defense. Given
these precepts, we find that there is no substantial evidence to hold Juan
D. Dela Cruz liable for grave misconduct.
Wherefore, foregoing premises considered, respondent JUAN D.
DELA CRUZ is hereby found NOT GUILTY for violation of Sections 4, 5, 22
and 46 of Rule XVII, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive
Order No. 292 and the petition should be dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.
Done this 30th of September 2022 at Civil Service Commission
Regional Office 8, Government Center, Palo, Leyte.

JOSEFA JOY D. MALIGAYA, CESO IV

Director IV, Civil Service Commission, RO VIII
Pawing, Palo, Leyte